Depends how plausible and realistic they are or could be and whether it could generate a good discussion. If I posted a thread saying how long before the BBC launched a channel for people who live on the Moon, that would be totally unrealistic and the thread would die.

But to answer the question you posed, you might want to post a link to the appropriate Appleman episode (I haven't seen any of them and i probably should) so we can all get up to speed first. But generally speaking its most plausible if the BBC lost its licence its replacement may have just been something similar (ie structure or something) without a need to go down the American route.

If the BBC was abolished, I imagine it would either be replaced by a subscription-based model, or advertising.

Personally, I would prefer a halfway-house solution like SVT in Sweden have. They air adverts between programmes, but not during.

I wouldn't want a subscription-based model but I'm quite against the licence fee, particularly that people have to pay it to own a TV, even to watch non-BBC programmes. I would prefer the BBC to use advertising in order to fund their programming, or as is suggested by James this 'halfway-house solution' that SVT use. I didn't even know they did this - you learn something new everyday

In most countries you pay a licence fee and you get adverts as well. I greatly admire what RTE achieves with a small population base and, thus, a much smaller amount of cash coming in to pay the bills. But through sheer necessity, they have to take adverts, and the product placement is painful at times. Their equivalent of BBC Radio 1, RTE 2FM, is a good little station but has the amount of commercial sells you'd expect from a commercial station over here.

The BBC is far from perfect and making some really odd choices at the moment, but we really don't get a bad deal from it.

If the BBC was abolished, I imagine it would either be replaced by a subscription-based model, or advertising.

Personally, I would prefer a halfway-house solution like SVT in Sweden have. They air adverts between programmes, but not during.

I wouldn't want a subscription-based model but I'm quite against the licence fee, particularly that people have to pay it to own a TV, even to watch non-BBC programmes. I would prefer the BBC to use advertising in order to fund their programming, or as is suggested by James this 'halfway-house solution' that SVT use. I didn't even know they did this - you learn something new everyday

Read my comment above. SVT do not show advertising, they have limited programme sponsorships in place to fund big events.

In most countries you pay a licence fee and you get adverts as well. I greatly admire what RTE achieves with a small population base and, thus, a much smaller amount of cash coming in to pay the bills. But through sheer necessity, they have to take adverts, and the product placement is painful at times. Their equivalent of BBC Radio 1, RTE 2FM, is a good little station but has the amount of commercial sells you'd expect from a commercial station over here.

The BBC is far from perfect and making some really odd choices at the moment, but we really don't get a bad deal from it.

Perhaps we don't know how good we've got it, but I would support the licence fee more if it contributed to all channels. I feel that it basically being there to fund the BBC isn't really fair on commercial rivals. I think what I should have said is that "I'm against the licence fee in its current form". The exact split between channels would have to be figured out and also which other channels would receive funding from it and how much each.